The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the collective research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The concept of a central Arbitrum hub, alongside the Foundation website to address information fragmentation, is promising. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is clean. However, much of the content is outdated, and several important sections—such as collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, and incentives—remain entirely empty. This is unfortunate.
The website has accumulated 12,700 views and 5,600 sessions since its launch; these numbers are decent but do not represent high-impact engagement. Additionally, the presence on socials is minimal; the X page has a small following and has not posted any content since August.
Given that the project previously received an education grant, we expected the site to be more up-to-date. That way, the initiative could demonstrate a clear and effective reach and impact before seeking a long-term contract from the DAO.
While the team clearly has good intentions and has successfully created a hub to showcase the DAO, it currently falls short of fulfilling its intended purpose. Its success depends on consistently updated information and ways of driving traffic to it, which it unfortunately seems to lack at the moment.
Will this initiative ultimately provide enough value and achieve the desired impact? It has the potential to do so; however, the proposed team size and budget, particularly on the communications side seem excessive.
In light of these concerns, we are inclined to vote against this proposal. Furthermore, we believe that such initiatives should be part of a strategic vision by the Arbitrum DAO to develop its own website and social media infrastructure.
We would like to highlight that so far, we have been working voluntarily at our own discretion. Building and maintaining this platform without any direct support from the DAO is a commendable effort in itself. At this point, it’s unclear what level of perfection the DAO expects, especially without investing adequate resources.
Our capabilities are evident in the work we’ve done, such as on ArbitrumHub.io. As skilled professionals, we have invested our expertise to create and maintain this exclusive platform.
We’ve also emphasized treating this as a proof of concept:
“We encourage you to view this platform as a proof of concept for what we aim to achieve. Imagine the possibilities we could unlock with dedicated support and resources from the DAO. DAO support would enable us to significantly enhance this platform and fully realize its potential.”
If the DAO expects 100% perfection, it’s essential to acknowledge that achieving such standards requires resources, time, commitment, and financial backing. For context, we just received a small starter grant from pL Labs back in January-February 2024, and no additional support has been provided since then.
Achieving such perfection requires resources, time, finances, and commitment. We have clearly outlined that these will be our focus if the proposal is approved. If the DAO expects this level of perfection at this stage without providing any resources, it is difficult for us to comprehend or respond to such expectations from a DAO of this scale.
We hope this clarifies our position and underscores the need for proper support to take this initiative to the next level.
Thank you for sharing your proposal; we appreciate the effort and thought you’ve put into it. We have a few points we’d like to understand better:
Cost Breakdown:
In a previous proposal, the hourly rate for a copywriter was $40, but in this one, it has increased to $60. We’re curious about what might have caused this difference. It would be great to understand the reasoning behind this adjustment.
Also, some still delegates have mentioned that the overall cost feels a bit high. Do you think there’s room to further lower the budget to address this ?
User Interaction Insights:
It would be really interesting if you could include details about how users interact with your platform. For example, knowing how many people are clicking into specific pages—like the “Ambassador” section—could be useful. This kind of information might show which areas are drawing the most attention or creating the biggest impact.
Alternative Funding Options:
Is there a particular reason you chose not to apply through Questbook? We’ve had a similar experience where a proposal didn’t pass a Snapshot vote but was later approved on Questbook. It might be worth considering if you haven’t already explored it.
first of all I also want to acknoledge the effort you made into gathering feedback, adjusting the proposal and this several times as people, including me voted against it in the past for several reasons.
With this new scope I do see the difference between the foundation website and the hub and think it got way better.
In terms of funding I do also agree with the others that it has changed and the justification is not quite clear to me.
Im soneone that is looking at DAOs spending at taking this into account, it will cost a lot to compensate. Especially when the ARB token will loose more value, do you want to ask for more token?
This wont help the token price nor anyone asking for funds, so we have to keep thinking about this all the time when spending these.
I am going to abstain for now as im still not 100% sure, if reasonable arguments are brought I might change.
Even though the cost seems high for a website like arbitrumub. We do have a problem to solve here with the entrance of new users, and the collection of information on the forum.
Im going to go FOR with Retroactive because I think that the idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website making it easer to collect the information is something we must invest on. And even though the website has a lot of adjustments to do. I think if we approve and support this with some financial backing, we can achieve better standards on the website. I’m looking at this website like a prototype not as a website that should be running perfect, especially without financial backing. So I believe if we support this, the adjustments can be made along the way…
While the overall proposal is much improved from past versions, the cost structure could still be revised, especially because the rational for retroactive funding does not seem to be properly accounted for or broken down like future expenses.
Moving forward the SOPs and structure do check out, save for some hourly billing (mainly the Coprywriter role warranting the same hourly rates as Development and Design). Clearer info on these two topics should do away with most concerns to get it passed.
First I want to commend @0x_Buidler and his crew on iterating on this project for several months if not almost a year: we need, in Arbitrum, builders like you capable to stick to their personal vision. This is not a statement to just sweeten the pill here, I really mean it.
That said, I still have two big issues: the fact this is an isolated initiative for the infra of the dao, and the costs. To report what I posted above for clarity.
While there was the effort to embed this into the SOS proposal and any future change, I don’t honestly think is enough: the website of the DAO will be one of our main front end for communication beside social accounts (assuming we will ever had dao managed ones), and it has to go through a more high level strategic plan.
As a secondary point, the budget is still too high for the service provided. I think that for slightly more we could hire directly a marketing team for the dao which would help us filling a gap that we have. This would help not only driving the engagement higher, but also spread the geography (if we see the reporting dashboard with a 6 months horizon, of the 11,000 visit to the website almost half of them come from India, which is neither right or wrong but is likely a byproduct of the founder being based in that geography AFAIK. Which means, to me, that the current reach is mostly tied to personal effort, and we are at a point in which we need to step up the game in several areas.
As a final note, I don’t know how the current team could interface themself with the DAO in future, and likely with OpCo going forward, I can’t say if with the current terms this project could be for example absorbed by the opco, or the team hired as service provider. I like the work that was done, and I think we should find a way to reward the “stickiness” of a team in the ecosystem, just, not with these economical terms, and not without an higher level plan.
I will vote in favor of this proposal during the temp check, but my support on Tally will depend on significant modifications and commitments from the team.
First: I am voting in favor because I agree with the concept, although not so much with its current execution.
The problem I see, which needs to be addressed, is that the DAO lacks a centralized platform or a single “one-stop shop” where all up-to-date information is readily available. This would include details on current working groups, points of contact, easily digestible summaries of proposals or initiatives, meeting schedules, etc.
For instance, I imagine a platform where I can log in with minimal knowledge of the DAO and quickly understand the Delegates Incentive Program and how to participate.
Or a place where I immediately receive alerts about upcoming elections for a position in the Domain Allocator, with clear explanations of what it entails and how to apply.
And so on.
For this reason, I would eliminate all content unrelated to the DAO or Arbitrum’s technology. I would remove initiatives from the foundation and the community hub (at least in an initial iteration). I would aim for an extremely simple site: updates on what’s happening in the DAO and how to participate—always up to date and with alerts. That’s it.
The idea is that any delegate or DAO participant, when asked where to find information on how to apply / participate / whatever, would instinctively answer: “The Arbitrum DAO Hub.” (Emphasis in “DAO” btw)
Similarly, any delegate or DAO participant should be able to find out, in just three clicks, when the next meeting to discuss DAO incentive programs is happening—and join it.
Etc., etc.
I like the idea of a bi-weekly newsletter and social media updates. I think these would complement a simple yet practical platform very well.
Regarding Jojo’s comments:
I agree with the concept, but I don’t think we can wait for the OpCo to be in place to execute something like this. It would make sense for you guys to also express your willingness to eventually integrate into that structure as a provider and align with the DAO’s mandate for the OpCo.
As mentioned by others, I’m also not convinced by the budget. Since I’m proposing a much more defined and “smaller” hub, I believe it could be significantly reduced to avoid it becoming an issue. I recommend a substantial budget cut, with a bonus payment at the end of the first year if the DAO is satisfied with the execution. As demonstrated in recent discussions in the Telegram group, expectations for this type of initiative can vary, which is why a bonus might be more appealing for delegates to approve.
Additionally, I don’t agree with the retroactive payment. I understand and I’m grateful for the work done so far, but the information is not up-to-date, nor is it a useful resource at this time. Therefore, I choose to vote against including this addition.
That said, I am casting my vote in favor during the temp check because I like the idea and believe it has the potential to address one of the DAO’s current needs.
Thank you all for the feedback! Our proposal is now live at: snapshot. A special thanks to @maxlomu for assisting in putting this on-chain.
As a final note, we want to emphasize that we’ve already slashed our budget multiple times—beyond what we were comfortable with—because we genuinely want to contribute to the DAO. We’ve termed this first year as a pilot year for good reason. While concerns about the budget being “too high” maybe valid, we haven’t received specific feedback on what exactly is deemed excessive. Is it the hourly rate? The roles? Or is it the scope of work that doesn’t align with the DAO’s expectations?
For context, we’ve proposed daily hours as low as 2 hours per day (5 days a week) for some roles, yet it still seems too much for the DAO. As a team, we’re not just maintaining the site—we’re managing everything independently and delivering a comprehensive package. This involves a range of specialized tasks, including:
Copywriting and research to ensure proper context, content, and awareness.
Designing pages, social assets, infographics, and creating custom iterations based on requests or initiatives.
High-quality, future-proof coding, ensuring a fully open-source platform.
Quarterly reporting and behind-the-scenes communication to collaborate with multiple stakeholders.
This work requires significant expertise, attention to detail, and a deep understanding of the DAO’s goals.
We’re not here to debate the budget further, as we firmly believe it is highly reasonable and transparently broken down. However, we remain fully open to constructive feedback on how to enhance this initiative and ensure it aligns with other efforts, such as SOS, OpCo, or any other relevant initiatives.
We’ve prioritized collaboration and integration over isolation in this proposal, ensuring that we deliver meaningful value without misusing the DAO’s resources. Our efforts are fully transparent and can be reviewed at arbitrumhub.io.
Our intentions are rooted in good faith—we aim to build something truly beneficial for the DAO and its community. With that, we place the fate of this proposal in the hands of the delegates and the broader community.
Thank you, @ArbitrumHub.io, for the proposal, the context provided, and the analytics. Currently, I am voting AGAINST this proposal, as many delegates have highlighted that the current costs, unless revised, are a significant impediment.
As a new delegate, I was actively seeking a centralized hub for all information related to Arbitrum. Unfortunately, I had difficulty finding your website, possibly because it was not listed in the Foundation Governance documents, and it may also suffer from limited visibility on social platforms like Twitter.
I fully support the idea suggested by @pedrob of creating a smaller hub focused solely on DAO topics. I would be pleased to support a proposal of this nature if it comes with a more modest budget
I vote against this proposal on Snapshot. The cost is excessive and I don’t believe it’s a priority for the DAO at this time. Additionally, the initial feedback I provided regarding the platform has not been addressed, which makes me doubt the community’s input is truly being considered.
First, we want to acknowledge the effort invested in maintaining the platform with limited resources. We also appreciate the $15,600 monthly price reduction and the revisions of the proposal to incorporate feedback from the previous iteration.
We support the idea of establishing an ArbitrumHub to aggregate information, and this is the primary reason we will be voting in favor at the snapshot. Our main concern is about how this initiative will integrate with other DAO efforts and its scope to ensure it can truly become the go-to resource for information. As highlighted by other delegates, we believe it would be beneficial for users to have straightforward access to the “source” of the information, rather than duplicating content that is already available on other platforms. Simplifying the layout and removing non-essential information would be a good approach to ensuring success.
We recognize that we are entering the budget discussion late. While we do not take issue with the monthly hours outlined, ideally we would like to see adjustments to the hourly rates for the research and copywriting roles before Tally.
Finally, do you have an estimate for hosting or tool-related costs?
Even if these will be covered by the ArbitrumHub, it would still be helpful to have a clearer understanding of these expenses.
Not a delegate, and I do not hold anywhere near a meaningful amount of voting power.
I will also refrain from commenting on the budget or utility of the project. I think that sort of decision requires a lot of context on the marketing strategy of ArbitrumDAO, context which I don’t have.
That being said, I checked your repository and I was impressed with the quality of it. Everything is well structured and documented. There are good examples on how to create new content, I even created a PR to test the deployment pipeline here - this is a test by andreivcodes · Pull Request #10 · HoomanDigital/ArbitrumDAO_Hub · GitHub. The PR was picked up by vercel and a preview deployment was made. I was not able to visit the preview deployment though, I think visiting preview deployments is allowed only for the Vercel team members. I recommend opening that to anyone who makes a PR, but keeping an eye out for spammers.
The tech stack you’re using is also a very good choice. AstroJS and markdown files for content is a good fit for this kind of static content. Everything is generated at compile time, there’s no backend to pull data from, which means it will always be fast and use a tiny amount of resources. Deploying on Vercel, and it being a static AstroJS website, makes it cache on Vercel’s CDN which means it will be snappy for every user, no matter the location they are visiting from. Honestly, nothing much to add here, maybe try to upgrade some of your dependencies to newer versions, but there’s nothing critical about that.
Overall, I was able to run and make changes to the project very easily. Maybe the markdown content and folder structure is not super intuitive for non technical people, but this could be maintained by any junior dev in the future.
Considering this wants to be the “face” of Arbitrum, and that comes with some responsibility for the DAO, I think it’s important to answer some questions though
Who owns the arbitrumhub.io domain? Who is paying for it? How can we make sure that it always gets renewed, does not expire, and gets snatched by some phishing scammers a few years from now?
How can we guarantee the continuity of the GitHub repo and Vercel project? How can the DAO have control over that, if necessary?
Who will review PRs, from a security standpoint, and make sure malicious code does not get in?
First, I want to acknowledge the team’s effort in incorporating feedback from the previous two failed proposals. By clarifying key performance indicators , budget details, and prioritizing platform maintenance, the team has demonstrated significant effort and a strong commitment to contributing to the DAO.
The reason for my abstention primarily lies in concerns over positioning +budgeting. The positioning of ArbitrumHub appears to overlap with the existing Foundation website and other community tools. Within the current DAO framework, duplicative efforts could impact overall efficiency. Without a clear differentiation in value from the existing platforms, sustaining the Hub in the long term may be challenging。
the rationale for the trial-phase budget and retrospective funding still requires further elaboration. These concerns regarding positioning and budget have not fully convinced me, but I do not oppose the team’s continued optimization and progress，My abstention reflects a desire to see more discussion and refinement of the proposal, rather than a rejection of the team’s efforts.
I voted against the proposal. As I mentioned before, the team size is too big and the proposed salaries are way too high for the location the team comes from (India). An average yearly salary in India is well-below $10k. If the proposal was, let’s say, $20k per year per person (which is still very high for the region), and the team size was reduced to 3 full-time persons, I’d consider supporting the proposal even though monthly website views are not that high (1700 monthly non-unique page views). I suggest the team applies for a Questbook grant instead.
Thanks for your feedback and we would like to highlight an important issue here about your statement on geography here.
In a digital, remote-first environment, geography is irrelevant when it comes to the value and quality of work delivered. Comparing rates or standards based on location disregards the global nature of modern collaboration and the expertise we bring to the table.
Our rates are competitive, aligned with industry standards, and reflect the complexity, precision, and value of the work we consistently deliver. We do not and will never work for “cheap rates,” nor do we compromise on quality to meet unrealistic or biased expectations.
Price reflects quality and the complexity of challenges solved. If our budget is deemed high, we expect specifics:
Are our hourly rates above industry standards?
Is there a particular role or aspect you believe is inflated?
Without this clarity, the assumption that rates should be lower based on geography is invalid. It’s not about where we come from; it’s about the unmatched value and expertise we provide. We stand firm: we don’t work for cheap, and our quality speaks for itself.
Fair, you have the right to pick your own rates (the same as a client has the right to refuse them - speaking generally). I just think your proposal would have a better chance of going through with lower rates. Personally I don’t think US (or Western Europe) rates should be the default in web3 (not to mention the cost of living there is higher than elsewhere), but again, anyone is free to set up their own rate.
Thank you, but we never proposed US or Europe-specific rates or whatever. We are referring to global industry standard rates and have proposed accordingly.
That said, we appreciate your feedback and opinion.